Tax Dispute Over Deceased's Liabilities: Respondent Ordered to Review Objections, Conduct Hearing, Hold Notices.

The HC directed the second respondent to address the objections raised by the writ petitioners against six notices issued by the Tax Recovery Officer regarding tax liabilities of a deceased relative. The Court mandated a personal hearing and a thorough review, keeping the notices in abeyance until the representation was resolved. If the decision favored the petitioners, the notices would be dropped; otherwise, they would remain suspended for an additional fortnight post-decision communication. The writ petition was disposed of with these instructions, and no costs were awarded. Connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of six notices issued by the Jurisdictional Tax Recovery Officer of the Income Tax Department to the tenants/lessees of the writ petitioners.
2. Appropriation of moneys payable by the lessees to the Department towards alleged tax liability of the writ petitioner's deceased relative.
3. Claim of the writ petitioner that the moneys payable to them by their lessees cannot be appropriated by the Department.
4. Interpretation of Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act regarding the Department's authority to proceed against the petitioners and other legal heirs.
5. Direction to the second respondent to consider all objections raised by the writ petitioners in their representation, provide a personal hearing, and pass a considered order within a specified timeframe.

Analysis:
1. The case revolved around the validity of six notices issued by the Jurisdictional Tax Recovery Officer to the tenants/lessees of the writ petitioners, calling for payment towards the tax liability of a deceased relative of the petitioners. The notices indicated that failure to comply would result in the noticees being treated as assessees in default. The petitioners contended that the moneys payable to them by their lessees should not be appropriated by the Department for the alleged dues of their deceased relative.

2. The writ petitioner asserted that the deceased relative was their father's brother, and they were only class II legal heirs according to his testament. The Court acknowledged the narrow scope of the matter and refrained from delving into further details. The Revenue Counsel argued that the IT Department could proceed against the petitioners under Section 226(3) of the IT Act and mentioned the availability of other legal heirs who could also be pursued by the Department.

3. Notwithstanding the Revenue Counsel's argument, the Court directed the second respondent to consider the objections raised by the writ petitioners in their representation dated 20.06.2019. The order mandated a personal hearing for the petitioners, an opportunity to submit supporting documents, and a thorough review of the case, including hearing other necessary parties like the children of the deceased relative. The second respondent was instructed to complete this process within eight weeks from the date of the order.

4. The Court emphasized that the impugned notices should be kept in abeyance until the representation was disposed of. If the outcome favored the writ petitioners, the notices would be dropped. However, if the result was unfavorable, the notices would remain suspended for an additional fortnight from the date of communication of the decision to the petitioners. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed as a consequence of the judgment.

---